Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
That is a completely circular argument. You are "proving" an assumption with the same assumption. Evertyhing except the conclusion that "something must have 'made' all this" is blind faith based on subjective experience.
Without that a priori your either lost in relativity or an artificial construct that gives the a priori to a human institution
Like faith? I agree.
Finally, as to your attempt to mischaracterize my analysis of your statement by cutting a portion of your own quote, I'll leave that to your conscience
I did not try to mischaraterize your analysis and if I cut it off it was not for that purpose. Please re-post it and I will make sure I take it in its entirety. Thank you.
....... You disagree with a LOT of what we think, teach, and do. Especially you disagree with us about what we're doing with the Eucharist. We say,"There are amazing graces available to the devout and penitent here," and you say,"No thanks," politely.
Well, as regards transubstantiation, we say "that's not true", politely. :) But that still prompts the question of why we would nevertheless be unwelcome to share in the celebration of the Supper with you. The way you present it, it seems like the graces you offer, including the accompanying theology, are actually mandatory or else you close the door. Any Roman Catholic would always be welcome to partake of the Lord's Supper in any Bible-believing church. We only ask that any partaker honestly consider himself a believer.
Also, No a lying, cheating, murdering, raping, unrepentant Roman Catholic is NOT EITHER perfectly welcome to receive it. If he does so unrepentantly he just exacerbates his already mortal state of sin. VERY bad mojo.
Ah, I didn't understand your reaction and so I went back and studied everything that's been said. My response, that you're alluding to, was based on your saying this:
And the sacraments are not denied to anyone in extremis in any event.
I had never seen the word "extremis" before so I just assumed it meant somehow separated from the Church, like someone who was unrepentant. But now I've looked it up and see that it really means something much more like: "close to death". So, I owe you an apology. I totally misunderstood.
We Do claim a "superiority" (a superiority by gift) in the "means of grace" (the sacraments), and that would be in terms of reliability or assuredness.
I'm up on this because at the request of my pastor I wrote an "epistle" to some Episcopalians who were thinking about converting and who needed to wrap their minds around what it meant when we said that their sacraments were invalid. I said, inter alia that we would not say that God had certainly NOT acted in those "attempts" at sacramental ministration, but only that he sho' 'nuff, you can take it to the bank, acts in those of the Catholic Church. (If you want, I can email you the article. It's good for sleeplessness. Most people read two sentences and doze right off.)In any event, claiming plene esse of churchiness is to be distinguished from claiming superiority across the board.
Okay, WE're patronizing and condescending? Have you read some of the characterizations on your side? "Anti-Christ"? "Whore of Babylon"? "Magicsterical"?
Now I don't think those are patronizing and condescending, as it happens, though some of them are needlessly and uselessly hostile. But let's look closer.
In general Protestants talk about an "invisible" Church, loosely attached or related (if it is attached or related at all) to ecclesial-type organizations. I would say you don't even want to be or think it possible to be what we mean by "The Church." So we AGREE with you that your organizations are not a Church as we think Church to be. It seems hard to call agreement arrogant and condescending. You don't even WANT to be what we think the Church is. There's a disagreement on the nature of "Church", and is it arrogant of us to think we're right but not arrogant of those who disagree with us to think THEY're right?
Anyway, a lot of the rest of what you're writing seems to me to confuse the claim of the plene esse of Church with moral superiority. The image I want is that of a lot of sick scoundrels and fools in charge of the best pharmaceutical supply-house in the world. And if somebody says, "How good can the medicines be if those guys are so sick?" I'll answer, "You should see them without the medicine!" If I haven't persuaded you of the distinction or that one in no way implies the other (not in my alleged mind, anyway) let me know.
But that one Church is only you guys and no one else ...
No. The FULLNESS of Church is only we guys. To me at any rate that's an important distinction.
You guys validly baptize. If someone who could show that he'd been baptized in water in the name of the Trinity in the "up-in-the-holler, snake-handlin', poison-drinkin', hard-shell, foot-washin', two-seed in the Spirit, baptized by fire, Holiness Gospel Assembly", we will NOT make OUR ceremony and sacrament of baptism a condition of admission to the sacraments. How much less so if he was baptized in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You read most of the sho' 'nuff Scriptures. You pray, or some of you do (as a few of us do), devoutly, and you commend and commit your lives to Christ. A lot of what you teach and preach is very fine indeed, and the manner of its expression ought often to be an example and rebuke to some of our preachers and teachers. I can with real spiritual benefit listen to some evangelical radio stations.
We're not saying you ain't got nuthin'. We're saying you don't have it all, all of what the Church offers. I'm not trying to sell the Catholic Church here. I'm trying to clarify Dominus Iesus and the gloss that came out afterwards -- and to de-fang it a little.
As far as the Pope holding all aridly authority goes, if you have the time, check my tome on another thread. Such brilliance can not be repeated too often, it'd be like champagne for breakfast. (Not to self: confess lack of humility ...) To sum it up, I think the Lockean/Montesquieu-ian view of polity is not appropriately applied to the governance of the Catholic Church. And specifically, when the Pope, say, defines the Assumption, a lot of Protestants think of that as a kind of sua sponte, executive function, but it's way more like an exercise of what we in the US would think of as judicial function (if we want to try to force it into modern political categories). The question is nattered about for a hundred or a thousand years and the Pope is petitioned and nagged and counseled and advised and argued with, and finally he says, "Okay. Enough already. Here's what we teach: blah blah blah, I declare and define, blah blah blah. Roma locuta, causa finita, next case."
Jeesh, why don't we just discuss every important issue in one post and crash the system? But let's move on to faith and works:
If Christ really truly died once and for all for the sins of the elect, then further human atonement would not be necessary. Since the Church teaches that after belief future works are required to be saved, then the threshold of salvation being certain for all time will only be crossed based on a work of a man.
First of all, we should insert "ordinarily" before "required". If you get hit by a truck and in hyour expiring breath you conceive inwaqrdly that Jesus really IS Lord and you want Him for your personal savior, don't worry, you're in. (In purgatory, probably, but you're still in.) But if you miraculously recover, it would be a good idea to get Baptized.
Anyway, the hidden assumption is in the last prepositional phrase, "of a man". The "works" and their "merits" ARE graces. There's as fine a statement of this as I've ever read in this Month's (that is, April) First Things. I can't find my copy in the swamp here and it won't be online until next month's issue is published. But the author has the wisdom and perceptiveness to agree with moi that both works and their "merit" are gifts, not "earned" in any simple sense. If I do something right, (I'll let you know what that happens, if ever) it will be a gift from God, from conception to willing to performance. And the sequel, presumably beneficial to me somehow, will also be a gift.
Haven't you ever done something right and been flooded with not pride but gratitude? For it was Christ who xworked in you, both to will and to do.
As far as my take on Col 1:24 goes (and I do hold that Paul is, dramatically and not to be taken over-simply, saying that in some way there is room in Christ's work for Paul's suffering as a useful addition) I think the word "Rejoice" in "I rejoice in my sufferings" is overlooked. Paul's suffering and the works in which God summons us to walk are not burdens but gifts in which to rejoice. They are themselves salvation working in the "now", as one might say.
Sure because of our brokenness and failure of vision they sometimes seem like burdens we must carry, but they are privileges and gifts which God offers us.
I cannot help thinking that it will be good for the conversation to have discovered that you think WE separate works and faith and I think YOU do.
Enough already. I hope this was at least clear.
***No one can have true faith and then not do works. ***
I would agree with that from a Catholic perspective. But I would disagree with the idea that only true faith brings good works. Therefore good works is evidence only of faith and not proof.
The heathen can do good works and the Reformed elect can do evil. Which proves nothing.
The question still stands: what is essential about good works from a Calvinist perspective other than the fact that is a nice thing to do and is mentioned by Jesus. What happens if one of the elect simply neglected to do good works? Does it have any effect on his salvation (I understand that the Calvinist says no)? If not, then what does it have an effect on?
***But I thought that the Catholic position was that through Apostolic succession any priest had the authority to absolve sin based on John 20:23. I have been told that Heaven accepts the decision of the priest (even one who has wrongly been fooled). That doesn’t match what you are saying.***
You appear to be correct. The Catholic doctrines that I have scrutinized support that. Based upon the passages in Matthew and John, that is the case.
***That is the classic difference between God’s POV and man’s. Men fully experience free will, so it is fully real, for us. On a higher plane, God is in control. ***
Sounds like rationalizing to me. :)
Outstanding, MD! Hey, you're not going to get in any trouble for this, are you? I wouldn't want to contribute to that. :) If the Vatican ever wants to take another stab at ecumenism, they should hire you as a writer. :)
Gotta go do my vain repetitions and idolatrous worship. I hope I was clear and useful.
Yes, indeed. Last night I officially gave up my last vestige of idolatry (I hope). I learned the sad news that Mary Ann from "Gilligan's Island" got popped for tootin' a Mary Jane. I was crushed. It's like my whole childhood doesn't mean anything anymore. OH the humanity! :)
Any Roman Catholic would always be welcome to partake of the Lord's Supper in any Bible-believing church. We only ask that any partaker honestly consider himself a believer.
It really comes down to if you believe the sacrifice at the cross was sufficient. The Lord's Supper and Baptism are great illustrations of this fundamental difference and evidence that our respective churches do teach a different Gospel, something to consider on Resurrection Sunday.
Sigh. I wonder what God thinks of all this. Must be Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross just wasn’t enough....Now we have to work our way in.
Do YOU even believe in God? That Jesus is what the Bible says he is?
Many do good works but how do we know it was what God asked them to do? We need to be doing what we see the Father doing. Those are the works that count. That’s why prayer is so important. We can be so busy doing good things for God that we miss Him and miss what He’s really calling us to do.
I have to think about that. Do you all require Baptism for reception of the Lord's Supper?
Of course it would be something like "openness" to the graces etc. blah blah that would be mandated. If I get that chance I'll tackle one of my guys on this. The usual line is full ecclesiastical communion is a "ordinarily" (blessed waffle word) required for full sacramental communion (but near death or in other amazing circumstances we're willing to take a chance.)
I think part of the rationale is the "discerning the body" part of the Corinthians thing - NOT JUST discerning the transubstantiated body (which would be discernible only by faith in any event) but the corporate unity of the Church. Something like that. As I said, I need to think and ask about it.
As for the misunderstanding: It's all that there Latin's whut it is. I'm sorry too for communication failure too. "In extremis" was a term used in my Protestant growing up household so I just figgered ... The desire for economy of words leads to jargon leads to confusion.
There are parts of the Bible that are mysteries for sure, but God wanted His Gospel to be a simple gospel, so everyone could understand it. People try to read too much into it instead of just taking it for what it is.
What IS IT with some folks who can’t believe that God’s word is just that, God’s word, to us his believers? He is speaking to us today through the scriptures. Why can’t people believe that His word is living and true even for today? We don’t need church fathers to tell us what it says, we can read it for ourselves.
I call Him Daddy sometimes, when I need a daddy! I’m his daughter, he’s my dad. That’s the kind of intimate relationship he wants with us. He’s not religious! He’s relational.
Well the way I'm following the argument these days leads me to ask "Sufficient for what?" or "What does being saved on earth 'look' like?"
Clearly in some, in the most important sense, it is all-sufficient. But still ...
I'll argue it offers the privilege of working with God, of taking up our (adopted) sonship by doing (poorly) what we see the Father doing. If what you see as the burden of works is instead the gift, privilege, and honor of works, we have another way of looking at the problem.
I say again, Paul rejoices at his sufferings and that in his flesh he completes "what is lacking in Christ's afflictions ...". This is the same Paul who, more clearly than anyone else in the NT proclaims the completeness and sufficiency of Christ's suffering, and who also urges the Philippians to work out their own salvation (!) in fear and trembling (! again!), for God works in them both to will and to do.
So the language here is, at the simplest level contradictory, I think. I mean either Christ worked out our predestined salvation or not, huh?
But if doing good works is not something with which we are burdened but the work of God in us, then ONE solution is to view, as I've said, works and their "merit" as further gifts, as the working out in our lives of God's plan for us. Or, to say it another way, we are saved from futility into meaningful works, while we live, and (intercession of the saints anyone?) after we die.
This is why, in a round about way, I don't get into the donnybrooks over predestination and irresistible grace and the rest turning us into automata. The interaction between our willing and God's willing in us is just mysterious to me.
To oppose too simply God's action as simply external to us and our action as isolated from God seems to me to fail to be in line with the fullness of the Pauline message or of our experience.
And again, when you do something right, are you proud or grateful? Isn't it precisely then that you see that God was at work in you both to will and to do and that it was all gift?
***The difference is that empirical models work, they work repeatedly and predictably, on demand. Subjective models don’t; they work “on hope,” and “mystery.”***
But empirical models only work for things that are included in the model. And empirical models are normally short term projects that usually don’t include all variables at the time of formation.
***Many do good works but how do we know it was what God asked them to do?***
Bingo.
***We need to be doing what we see the Father doing.***
Umm, what have you seen the Father doing?
***That’s why prayer is so important. We can be so busy doing good things for God that we miss Him and miss what He’s really calling us to do.***
If you mean that we can be so busy doing things that we think are good instead of doing what He’s really calling us to do, then we are in complete agreement.
Yes, that’s what I do mean, Mark. There are people who get involved in ministries where they have no business being because that’s not what God asks of them.
The Holy Spirit teaches and guides us. I believe anyone who is sincerely looking for God’s will is going to find it. He will open the doors and he will shut them.
Yes, I do. And I make no other claims. It's faith. Nothing more.
That Jesus is what the Bible says he is?
What the Bible says about Jesus is a matter of human interpretation, not a source of faith.
Your own Protestant freinds would say "the indwelling spirit." It's nonsese, of course.
We need to be doing what we see the Father doing
No one has seen the Father; let alone seen the Father doing things.
That’s why prayer is so important
No. Prayer is important because we know mercy. And emrcy is not of this world. And because the Bible says "Ask and you shall receive."
We can be so busy doing good things for God that we miss Him and miss what He’s really calling us to do
He is "calling" you? How do you know who is calling you? Do you have His Caller ID number?
Nonsense. You have no proof of any of this to clim it as "fact." You can claim it as a matter of belief, your own inner conviction that is subjective and personal.
I believe anyone who is sincerely looking for God’s will is going to find it
I respect your belief, but I am asking you if this applies to anyone, or only to Christians?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.